4 ms·

I get that the core issue was frustrating for some and I agree it felt a bit performative, but: I’m always amazed when someone tries to claim that this incredib

by heeton 2y ago

I get that the core issue was frustrating for some and I agree it felt a bit performative, but: I’m always amazed when someone tries to claim that this incredibly thin step away via a music term _with the same originating meaning_ somehow completely disconnects “master” from slavery. Why don’t we spend energy on getting to the issues we actually care about instead of standing on shaky arguments and calling it a day. It’s lazy thinking.

CRConrad 2y ago
> _with the same originating meaning_ [Citation needed], as they'd say on Wikipedia. I don't think that's the origin at all. Why do you?
- heeton 2y ago
  I personally thought it because of some exposure to that industry / video / AV over the years. But then I looked for some examples to confirm and easily found many. Some decent examples here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26504086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26504086 Googling "Master Slave audio manual" has a bunch of examples. E.g. this manual from 1959 - https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Ampex/Ampex-351-Manual-1959.pdf https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Ampex/Amp...
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    Aha, interesting, thanks! I had no idea; I'd always thought it was from "master copy" like in, say, a manuscript that is duplicated by hand. (Sure, the life of a mediaeval monk working in a scriptorium was pretty strictly regulated, but I doubt anyone saw them as slaves, exactly.) Though that Ampex manual isn't all that convincing in this context, IMO. It's about the hardware level, all capacitors and oscillators and stuff, in "master" and "slave" amplifying circuits. That has pretty much nothing at all to do with "master tape" per se; it's more like "master" and "slave" hydraulic cylinders in the clutch or brake system of your car. Your HN link feels like a much better argument here. (Though I admit I haven't followed any of the links in it yet; going just by the quoted bits in the comment.)
marliechiller 2y ago
The thing is, most non-Americans dont connect master with slavery at all. In the same way we wouldnt connect cotton with slavery. It was a term used within the context of slavery, but wasnt created _for_ slavery. In fact, it long predates african-american slavery: _late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"_ So if we dislike the user of master, do we ban whip? Or any other term negatively associated with slavery that actually predates it? I think the actual answer is contextual, and in the context of git, there is no relation to slavery whatsoever for most of the worlds populace
- heeton 2y ago
  I'd wager good money that if you did a rapid-fire word association test on a spread of non-us english speakers, over half would say "slave" after master.
  - marliechiller 2y ago
    Id wager we could do the same with the word "quarter". Whats your point exactly?
    - heeton 2y ago
      > The thing is, most non-Americans dont connect master with slavery at all
      - marliechiller 2y ago
        Exactly... theyd be associating it with quartermaster rather than slavemaster...
esperent 2y ago
As a counterpoint, why do we spend huge volumes of energy trying to change minor linguistic term that is only tenuously related to a historical issue, rather than deal with the countless real social issues that exist today? The reason: because it was easier, it allowed corporations (especially Microsoft) to give the appearance of making social change, and because it distracted us from dealing with the real issues. In other words, laziness. And you know what, if you're firmly on the progressive left, as I am, that's no big deal. It's annoying, maybe it alienates me from taking part in social action. But it won't, for example, change who I vote for. However, we (the West) live in a period of history balanced on a narrow edge between social progression and social regression, with all manner of bad actors waiting on the wings to take advantage of our slipups. And this was a slipup, no matter how well meaning the people who pushed it through were. This, and many, many other small annoyances, were in all likelihood what it took to push a significant number of people to change their vote in the recent election. It's not the only reason, perhaps not even the main one. But any change is significant when you're balanced on an edge.
- whatwhaaaaat 2y ago
  Just understand if you’re the one forcing language, hiring based on race, and forcing people to take part in medical experiments — you’re the regressive one. There is nothing progressive about any of that.
  - heeton 2y ago
    I agree.
  - esperent 2y ago
    Nice strawmen, but I've never done or been involved in any of those things and I don't, personally, consider them progressive. I'm more inclined to think of changes like improved rights to self expression (as trans, gay, or pretty much anything else that doesn't too badly infringe on other people), social safety for poor people, more equitable sharing of generation wealth, especially related to land ownership, better care for the environment, better access to healthcare, education, and housing for all people, considering other species as sentient and according them the same rights as humans, and not viewing corporations as human as socially progressive issues. I also recognize that in all of these things, balance and nuance are required and conflicts are common and won't always be resolved in a way that makes me, personally, satisfied. > forcing language This entire thread is a majority of people, on a generally quite progressive forum, arguing strongly against forced language change. I do not believe that the majority of genuinely progressive people want or believe in forced language changes, with the exception of a few specific ethnic and gender based slurs.

by heeton 2y ago

CRConrad 2y ago

> _with the same originating meaning_ [Citation needed], as they'd say on Wikipedia. I don't think that's the origin at all. Why do you?

heeton 2y ago
I personally thought it because of some exposure to that industry / video / AV over the years. But then I looked for some examples to confirm and easily found many. Some decent examples here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26504086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26504086 Googling "Master Slave audio manual" has a bunch of examples. E.g. this manual from 1959 - https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Ampex/Ampex-351-Manual-1959.pdf https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Ampex/Amp...
- CRConrad 2y ago
  Aha, interesting, thanks! I had no idea; I'd always thought it was from "master copy" like in, say, a manuscript that is duplicated by hand. (Sure, the life of a mediaeval monk working in a scriptorium was pretty strictly regulated, but I doubt anyone saw them as slaves, exactly.) Though that Ampex manual isn't all that convincing in this context, IMO. It's about the hardware level, all capacitors and oscillators and stuff, in "master" and "slave" amplifying circuits. That has pretty much nothing at all to do with "master tape" per se; it's more like "master" and "slave" hydraulic cylinders in the clutch or brake system of your car. Your HN link feels like a much better argument here. (Though I admit I haven't followed any of the links in it yet; going just by the quoted bits in the comment.)

marliechiller 2y ago

The thing is, most non-Americans dont connect master with slavery at all. In the same way we wouldnt connect cotton with slavery. It was a term used within the context of slavery, but wasnt created _for_ slavery. In fact, it long predates african-american slavery: _late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"_ So if we dislike the user of master, do we ban whip? Or any other term negatively associated with slavery that actually predates it? I think the actual answer is contextual, and in the context of git, there is no relation to slavery whatsoever for most of the worlds populace

heeton 2y ago
I'd wager good money that if you did a rapid-fire word association test on a spread of non-us english speakers, over half would say "slave" after master.
- marliechiller 2y ago
  Id wager we could do the same with the word "quarter". Whats your point exactly?
  - heeton 2y ago
    > The thing is, most non-Americans dont connect master with slavery at all
    - marliechiller 2y ago
      Exactly... theyd be associating it with quartermaster rather than slavemaster...

esperent 2y ago

As a counterpoint, why do we spend huge volumes of energy trying to change minor linguistic term that is only tenuously related to a historical issue, rather than deal with the countless real social issues that exist today? The reason: because it was easier, it allowed corporations (especially Microsoft) to give the appearance of making social change, and because it distracted us from dealing with the real issues. In other words, laziness. And you know what, if you're firmly on the progressive left, as I am, that's no big deal. It's annoying, maybe it alienates me from taking part in social action. But it won't, for example, change who I vote for. However, we (the West) live in a period of history balanced on a narrow edge between social progression and social regression, with all manner of bad actors waiting on the wings to take advantage of our slipups. And this was a slipup, no matter how well meaning the people who pushed it through were. This, and many, many other small annoyances, were in all likelihood what it took to push a significant number of people to change their vote in the recent election. It's not the only reason, perhaps not even the main one. But any change is significant when you're balanced on an edge.

whatwhaaaaat 2y ago
Just understand if you’re the one forcing language, hiring based on race, and forcing people to take part in medical experiments — you’re the regressive one. There is nothing progressive about any of that.
- heeton 2y ago
  I agree.
- esperent 2y ago
  Nice strawmen, but I've never done or been involved in any of those things and I don't, personally, consider them progressive. I'm more inclined to think of changes like improved rights to self expression (as trans, gay, or pretty much anything else that doesn't too badly infringe on other people), social safety for poor people, more equitable sharing of generation wealth, especially related to land ownership, better care for the environment, better access to healthcare, education, and housing for all people, considering other species as sentient and according them the same rights as humans, and not viewing corporations as human as socially progressive issues. I also recognize that in all of these things, balance and nuance are required and conflicts are common and won't always be resolved in a way that makes me, personally, satisfied. > forcing language This entire thread is a majority of people, on a generally quite progressive forum, arguing strongly against forced language change. I do not believe that the majority of genuinely progressive people want or believe in forced language changes, with the exception of a few specific ethnic and gender based slurs.